From thanatos@dim.com Tue Mar 05 14:46:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: thanatos@dim.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 5 Mar 2002 22:46:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 34761 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2002 18:46:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Mar 2002 18:46:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO supernova.dimensional.com) (206.124.0.11) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2002 18:46:44 -0000 Received: from p30.3c04.pm.dimcom.net (p30.3c04.pm.dimcom.net [206.124.3.190]) by supernova.dimensional.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g24IkcX27519 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:46:39 -0700 (MST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] go'i: repeated referents or just sumti? Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:52:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4jg78ugc3cnlha5et6kmh4t6lvev0pk3ok@4ax.com> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: EWC X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=45881577 X-Yahoo-Profile: thandim2000 On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 01:35:07, "Jorge Llambias" wrote: >When we say "some people do this, some do that, >and others do so and so", "some" and "others" mean "some people" >and "other people", so we are in a sense requantifying from the >same set ("people"), but obviously not just from the first "some >people". Which isn't how the paragraph on requantification works, unfortunately. If you started with "three people" then you're always dealing with those three; it would be "three people do this, two of them do that, some of them do so and so", or {ci da poi prenu zo'u da co'e .ije re da co'e .ije su'o da co'e}. If you didn't want everything restricted to the first three people you just have to put the superset in the prenex, {ro da poi prenu zo'u ci da co'e .ije re da co'e .ije su'o da co'e}. >>I mean for {my} to be a separate variable that is restricted to the same >>group of individuals in mind as {re le mlatu}. So that {re le mlatu cu >>catlu my} would mean "two cats in mind look at each cat in mind". > >But that's easy to say explicitly: {re le mlatu cu catlu ro my}. If that doesn't mean instead that two cats look at each of those two same two cats, which is how I think the paragraph on requantification would have it. We're forever after making claims about some of those two cats after the initial quantification, so that {re le mlatu cu catlu roboi my} is {re le mlatu zo'u my catlu ro my}. We've restricted {my} to two nonspecific cats with the prenex, and the {roboi my} is each of those two cats. If we wanted each cat in mind to be looked at by exactly two cats in mind, I think that would be {ro le mlatu zo'u reboi my catlu my}, with the note that the two cats aren't the same for each cat. If we wanted the same two cats it would be {ro le mlatu zo'u reboi my ce'e roboi my catlu}, I think. I'm not sure how termsets interact with prenexes or with requantification. If requantification does "back up" past the initial quantification then we're stuck if we want to quantify from that number. "There are three things such that two of them do so and so and two of them do such and such", for example. That seems like a reasonable use of requantification as described in The Book, and I'm not sure how achieve the same result otherwise. --=20 EWC